FAQ
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:54 pm


Author Message
marnixR
Post  Post subject: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:17 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4759
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
just recently read a tongue-in-cheek about Loch Ness and the probability that it could maintain a population of large animals (presumed reptilian)

before we start with the stats, consider this : Loch Ness was covered under ice during the latest ice age and is now an oligotrophic lake connected to the see by a river that may or may not be deep enough for a substantial animals to make it into the loch

also consider that, unless we're talking about a long-living single animal, the persistence of the Nessie should imply a breeding population of these animals

so the first probability question is : how likely is it that a group of, say, 10 large animals (even with reptilian appetites) can find enough food in an oligotrophic lake to maintain themselves ?
the second one is : how likely is it that reptiles would have to sun themselves in order to aid digestion or increase their body temperature, and if that were the case, would that not lead to a far better detection record than the one observed so far ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:11 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
marnixR wrote:
just recently read a tongue-in-cheek about Loch Ness and the probability that it could maintain a population of large animals (presumed reptilian)

before we start with the stats, consider this : Loch Ness was covered under ice during the latest ice age and is now an oligotrophic lake connected to the see by a river that may or may not be deep enough for a substantial animals to make it into the loch

also consider that, unless we're talking about a long-living single animal, the persistence of the Nessie should imply a breeding population of these animals

so the first probability question is : how likely is it that a group of, say, 10 large animals (even with reptilian appetites) can find enough food in an oligotrophic lake to maintain themselves ?


A breeding population would have to consist of more than 10 individuals, but there has been some speculation that these animals might actually migrate from open ocean to the lake to breed or something like that, that seems improbable as well.

Quote:
the second one is : how likely is it that reptiles would have to sun themselves in order to aid digestion or increase their body temperature, and if that were the case, would that not lead to a far better detection record than the one observed so far ?


Reptiles do not have to sun themselves... sea turtles would be a prime example of this and leatherback sea turtles are endothermic...


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:44 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Nessie and all her family members, being reptiles, have to come up to the surface to breathe. There should be lots of sightings.


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:43 am
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
bunbury wrote:
Nessie and all her family members, being reptiles, have to come up to the surface to breathe. There should be lots of sightings.



I live near the ocean, sea turtles breath air and are quite a bit more common than nessie, it's rare to see one surface, although not unheard of but there are lots of them.

I tend to agree for whatever it's worth, no nessie, not ever, no nessie...

Although the giant eel hypothesis might work...


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:35 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4759
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Moontanman wrote:
A breeding population would have to consist of more than 10 individuals, but there has been some speculation that these animals might actually migrate from open ocean to the lake to breed or something like that, that seems improbable as well.


then the question changes to : what is the likelihood that a group of substantial animals migrates up and down the river through Inverness without ever being seen ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Moontanman
Post  Post subject: Re: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:27 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 281

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Moontanman wrote:
A breeding population would have to consist of more than 10 individuals, but there has been some speculation that these animals might actually migrate from open ocean to the lake to breed or something like that, that seems improbable as well.


then the question changes to : what is the likelihood that a group of substantial animals migrates up and down the river through Inverness without ever being seen ?



I would have to say that in modern times probably zero. Before the river was fitted with locks and other impediments it might have been possible.

Bull sharks migrate upstream in central america to a large lake, at one time the sharks in the lake were considered to be a separate species because it was thought the extreme rapids the sharks would have to swim through were impassible to such large fish but now we know they do it regularly.


I'm going to stick with the giant eel idea for these lake monsters, makes much more sense than extant plesiosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... e_monsters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(cryptozoology)

Lake Monsters are interesting in that it is possible they exist but are probably not "dinosaurs" or some other extinct animal surviving to modern times but there are other possibilities.

During colonial times a small creek in Ohio was devastated by a forest fire in the surrounding woods and in the aftermath several huge salamanders in the 5 to 10 foot range were found dead, no other specimens were ever found. At that time the area was wild and covered by old growth forests, subsequent deforestation destroyed the stream and it's inhabitants even the well known ones.

There have been reports of crocodilian type creatures in northern lakes that are far too cold to allow such creature to exist but very large unknown salamanders could and may be the basis for those sightings.

Eels are also a possibility, normal american and european eels do sometimes lack the urge to go back to their spawning grounds and can get very large. While no monster sized eels have ever been found it is not outside the range of reason to think such an eel that has no drive to reproduce, various reasons for this, could live many years and they never stop growing.

Some sightings, especially in the ocean, almost have to be some sort of cryptic creature. Many reports sound very much like plesiosaurs but there were ancient whales that fit the description as well and while unlikely are more likely than plesiosaurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus

Quote:
5. Tanystropheus: This hypothesis was proposed by Champ researcher Dennis Hall, who claims to have seen Champ 20 times. According to Hall, in 1976, his father caught a strange-looking reptile, on the shore of Lake Champlain. He then took it to scientists, who concluded that it was unlike any known species of living reptile. Unfortunately, however, this specimen was later lost. Hall then saw a picture of a Tanystropheus, and concluded that it was the most likely candidate, for Champ. However, there are numerous problems, with this hypothesis, as well. This is because Tanystropheus was a very specialized species of aquatic reptile, from the Triassic Period. This, therefore, makes it very unlikely, that it could have survived all the way to the present-day, and still inhabits Lake Champlain.


The above is from the link on Champ but the following link describes the extinct reptile it is suggested to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanystropheus

More on lake beasts.

http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/cryptodomi ... easts.html

Other possibilities but not all are freshwater.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Then you have to take in account the very real and very large freshwater fishes...

Image


Top
jimmydasaint
Post  Post subject: Re: nessie and probability  |  Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:15 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Farnham Royal, Bucks

Offline
I read a Scottish Sunday newspaper about 20 years ago, which claimed that Nessie was a group of car tyres strung together with a "head" of papier mache that was used as a joke by students and that was then taken over by the businessmen and canny politicians of the Loch Ness area in order to drum up tourism. Ripples in the waters have apparently been mistaken as the movements of a giant eel-like creature crossing the lake. The myth remains entertainment for tourists but I doubt that there are sufficient grounds to justify the existence of Nessie. Having visited the area, the closest you get to Nessie are some of the tough lassies who live in the area... :D

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor illis (I am a barbarian to those who do not know me) Ovid


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy